memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Archer system
61 Ursae Majoris? I have removed this information from the main article, since it is largely personal commentary, and is more suited to a discussion as to the validity of said source. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :In a monitor showed a biography of Jonathan Archer, with text written by Enterprise producer and episode writer Mike Sussman. The text indicated that the planet Archer IV was the planet from , and stated that this world orbited 61 Ursae Majoris. However, this reference (from the book ''Star Trek Star Charts) contradicts the sky view and dialog from , in which Archer identified the "Strange New World" planet as being "just to the left of Polaris" as viewed from Earth's surface. 61 Ursae Majoris is over a third of the sky away from Polaris, and the orientation of the stars in "Home" puts 61 UMa far offscreen and to the right. :In a post on TrekBBS.com, Mike Sussman stated that the information from the screens in were not to be regarded as "hard canon", and were to be taken "with a grain of salt". He did not anticipate the smaller monitor text being visible, and the write-ups he created (featuring text he composed and some StarTrek.com information) were not cleared through the rest of the producers and writing team. So, since not only does the 61 UMa claim conflict with "hard canon" from , but also has been disavowed by the production staff, it seems unlikely that the star of Archer IV is 'actually' 61 UMa. :Mike Sussman TrekBBS post on the monitor biographies I would point out to the anon user in question that regardless of this statement by Mike Sussman, the bio appeared on screen, and thus is what we take as a valid resource. Therefore, 61 UMa stands. The inconsistency with star position from Earth, and background notes from Sussman can be briefly noted on the 61 Ursae Majoris page when created. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC) You cannot simply say that 61 UMa stands. The statement by Sussman cannot simply be disregarded. A producer of the show (i.e. one of the arbiters of canon) has declared what he called the "slapped together hastily" bio screen to be of a lesser canon. Sussman, if you'll recall, also wrote "Home" according to Memory Alpha's listing, and thus is also our source for the contradictory dialog. Further, 61 UMa is in direct contradiction with the dialogue from "Home" and also the visuals therein, yet the two things it is in contradiction with are not in contradiction with one another. It is illogical to conclude that 61 UMa, which was (1) injected into the canon from a non-canon resource by a writer who slapped it together hastily and has declared that it is not "hard canon", and which (2) features two separate contradictions with "hard canon" episodes, somehow manages to trump everything else. If you do not wish to see the discussion on 61 UMa appear on the Archer system page, then 61 UMa should not appear in relation to the Archer system at all. That is misleading. If you have a suggestion for a compromise, let me know. :I would invite you to read and policies and its related talk page. Policy is written in terms of valid and invalid resources, and the community, rather than the producers of Trek, has decided what those are. The episodes, movies - ie, information seen on screen - are considered valid resources. Therefore, regardless of the writer's intentions or their consideration of canon, what is seen on screen is what we base articles on. This is frequently the case with monitor displays, PADDs, etc. that aren't particularly meant to be scrutinised as closely as their creators intend - their information is still included. See List of vessels passing through Deep Space Nine in 2370 or Starfleet casualties for examples of this. :So, since 61 Ursae Majoris was mentioned on screen as the parent star of Archer IV, we mention it here, and create an article on it. This is regardless of any background information. :Where a contradiction exists, a background note (indented and italicised to separate it from MA's 'in-universe' perspective) is made on the most relevant article. Therefore, the background note on 61 UMa should be on the page for 61 UMa, not here. The statement by Sussman will not be disregarded - it will be noted on the page for that star. We have no problem with including the information - it should just be put in the correct place. Rather, it is misleading to have information about a inconsistancy about a subject on a page that is not, technically speaking, about that subject. I hope you can see my point. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 23:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC) it says two planets but archer 4 implies 4 others? --Noahmj 02:34, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)